View source for Talk:Communication and Media Richness Assurance in High-performance Projects

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| Very good
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''||  I would recommend you to add a brief description of the Media Richness Theory (MRT), that you are focusing on. Perhaps you can leave the first part of the abstract to the introduction. The abstract should be a summary of your article, stating and describing the tool/theory/concept you are analysing throughout the article.
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Good
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''||  Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Missing references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
|-

|}

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Martin Eberholst Carlsen''==
===Question 1 · TEXT===
'''Quality of the summary:'''

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? 

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 1===
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? 
Yes, the flow of the abstract is very good and natural. The language is very professional. 

What would you suggest to improve?
Maybe include some of the conclusions as it is an abstract and should present the findings in the article. 

===Question 2 · TEXT===
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' 

Is the argument clear? 

Is there a logical flow to the article? 

Does one part build upon the other? 

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? 

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 2===
Is the argument clear? 
I think the argumentation and examples given are clear. I can see that some work is needed before it is done, but the work done so far is very good, and the argumentation is good.

Is there a logical flow to the article? 
The Introduction gives a really good introduction to how good communication is important. The order of the sections is very natural and I like the end with the case studies. 

Does one part build upon the other? 
Yes, I like the idea that the argumentation goes from the core basis of human needs. 

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? 
Yes it is free of contradictions. 

What would you suggest to improve?
In the "Human Nature" section, an example of this seen in project management would be good. If some data of effective communication could be found, it would be good for the argumentation of why it is important. 

===Question 3 · TEXT===
'''Grammar and style:''' 

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? 

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? 

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 3===
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? 
Yes

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
Language is very precise 

What would you suggest to improve?
Nothing

===Question 4 · TEXT===
'''Figures and tables:''' 

Are figures and tables clear? 

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? 

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 4===
'Are figures and tables clear? 
No figures or tables

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? 
-

What would you suggest to improve?
Include figures

===Question 5 · TEXT===
'''Interest and relevance:''' 

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? 

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? 

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 5===
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? 
Yes, it is an interesting topic that would be relevant for both practitioners and academics. 

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? 
Yes very much, both in the introduction and in the different sections

What would you suggest to improve?
More concrete examples on how Project Managers can use the concept of Media Richness in their management style.

===Question 6 · TEXT===
'''Depth of treatment:''' 

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? 

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? 

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 6===
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? 
Yes

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? 
Yes

What would you suggest to improve?
Finish the different sections that needs to be elaborated. 

===Question 7 · TEXT===
'''Annotated bibliography:''' 

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? 

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? 

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? 

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 7===
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? 
Yes

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? 
Yes

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? 
Could use some empirical data

What would you suggest to improve?
More citations

==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Mark Christiansen''==
===Question 1 · TEXT===
'''Quality of the summary:'''

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? 

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 1===
It is a very clear abstract and I really like how you points out what you find most interesting, and how you work through the article applying tools and methods to cases.

No recommendation :)

===Question 2 · TEXT===
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' 

Is the argument clear? 

Is there a logical flow to the article? 

Does one part build upon the other? 

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? 

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 2===
I see clear the shape and structure of the article, I believe it will end be good when you fill in the blanks.

I am not sure about the depth you apply for the 2 sections "Humand Nature" and "Organisational Psychology". I guess time will tell if you have room for it, but maybe you could rewrite it shorter as a part of the introduction.

===Question 3 · TEXT===
'''Grammar and style:''' 

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? 

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? 

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 3===
I won't teach you about gramma ;-)  

===Question 4 · TEXT===
'''Figures and tables:''' 

Are figures and tables clear? 

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? 

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 4===
There is no tables or figures yet, and I strongly suggest to apply a relevant figure or two to the article.

===Question 5 · TEXT===
'''Interest and relevance:''' 

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? 

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? 

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 5===
It looks like its practical relevance will be vindicated when its complete. Remember when you dig into the cases to ensure that the reader get the important points so that it will not only be story telling.

===Question 6 · TEXT===
'''Depth of treatment:''' 

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? 

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? 

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 6===
It's a very interesting topic, and I think it will be interesting when you start to add analysis and practices to the cases which hopefully the reader can learn from and apply for his own future.

===Question 7 · TEXT===
'''Annotated bibliography:''' 

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? 

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? 

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? 

What would you suggest to improve?

===Answer 7===
You have all ready done some references and I suggest you keep adding more as you work your way through it. 

Remember that we should a least reference one or two of the standards from the course.